Kate Klonick

@Klonick

Asst. Prof. • PhD/JD • Fellow • Studying internet free speech, private governance, virality & shaming; cog. psychology, AI & algorithms

Joined September 2014

Tweets

You blocked @Klonick

Are you sure you want to view these Tweets? Viewing Tweets won't unblock @Klonick

  1. Pinned Tweet
    16 Jan 2019

    Me, starting Internet Law class w/a joke: Guys, the last time this course was taught here the cutting edge case was Napster! [blank stares] Me, horrified: Wait. DO YOU KNOW WHAT NAPSTER IS? [sheepish shaking of heads] Me: I'M ONLY 34 I CAN'T ALREADY BE THAT PROFESSOR

    Undo
  2. 11 hours ago

    This is the celebration of femininity I come to the Super Bowl for.

    Undo
  3. Retweeted
    24 hours ago

    Great thread and you should read it, not least because it makes the tennis analogy I gave in my recent piece on Facebook's Oversight Board () seem _very_ deep.

    Undo
  4. Retweeted
    Feb 1
    Undo
  5. Retweeted

    💻 Join Jonathan as a Senior Research Coordinator to sharpen and focus a research agenda and make valuable contributions in the field of cyberlaw and beyond.

    Show this thread
    Undo
  6. Feb 1

    If this video from China of the government USING DRONES TO SPY ON & YELL AT THEIR CITIZENS doesn't make you realize that autocratic governments' co-optation of tech is *THE* problem we should be talking about, I really don't know what will.

    Undo
  7. Retweeted

    We had a great discussion about ‘s Between Truth and Power today with sessions on authority and legitimacy, the lens of legal and professional culture, and alternative futures

    , , and 6 others
    Undo
  8. Retweeted
    Jan 31

    Again, the 'slaughterbots' in this video are semi-AWS - their targets were selected by human beings. THEY WOULDN'T BE PROHIBITED BY A BAN ON FULLY AUTONOMOUS WEAPON SYSTEMS. Maybe we should focus on regulating the use of semi-AWS instead of misleading scaremongering.

    Show this thread
    Undo
  9. Retweeted
    Jan 30

    Happy to have contributed in a small part of this reporting on . Any viral story allows for capturing attention through keyword squatting. Scams scale just like all other things online.

    Undo
  10. Jan 31

    Reporter to me a week ago: “TikTok says it wants to ban political speech across the platform because it’s just supposed to be fun content.” Me: “yeahhhhhhh that’s not a thing.”

    Undo
  11. Jan 31

    Everyone is in for a real treat when the latest Arbiters of Truth comes out because and I got to interview with his fancy podcast set up and it was AWESOME

    Undo
  12. Jan 31

    My colleagues are doing such cool things!!

    Undo
  13. Retweeted
    Jan 31

    It was a high honor to have this conversation, with 1,000 friends plus a polar bear, walruses, & the huge blue whale watching. Thank you, Justice Kagan, , & President Hank Greenberg.

    Undo
  14. Retweeted
    Jan 30
    Replying to

    This looks like a barn burner! I’m in.

    Undo
  15. Jan 30

    This is so kind and also can I just say IS THE BEST, & pushes me on my takes & makes them better & I’m so happy for the wisdom and camaraderie.

    Undo
  16. Jan 30
    Undo
  17. Retweeted
    Jan 30
    Undo
  18. Jan 29

    Also, I know many have pushed back on it, but this is a powerful example of the idea of "clickbait defamation" that raises. Headlines, memes, pictures are stand alone objects. Even reading that entire CNBC article you wouldn't *really* be clear about what the story was.

    Undo
  19. Jan 29

    (5) Consider all of the above when you're talking about disinformation and misinformation and who/how we hold people, news orgs and companies accountable for it. 7/7

    Show this thread
    Undo
  20. Jan 29

    (3) Imagine if this was happening 12 hours before the caucuses or New Hampshire. Or the general. Imagine the harm to Warren. (4) Mistakes happen. Misunderstandings happen. The problem is the harms go farther, live longer, and have more impact than ever before. 6/

    Show this thread
    Undo
  21. Jan 29

    (1) CNBC isn't RT. It isn't Breitbart. It isn't MotherJones. It's relatively mainstream. There was no real agenda here. (2)That maybe made its error even more dangerous because people were most trusting of the headline. 5/

    Show this thread
    Undo

Loading seems to be taking a while.

Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.

    You may also like

    ·